Bepanted shovel-toting farmer wins privacy payout from France TV A French farmer who was filmed setting about bird conservationists with a shovel while in his underpants has won damages from a TV company that filmed the incident for violating his privacy. The set-to originally occurred back in 2015, when a French bird conservation group called the Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux (LPO, …
Mine liked to say he had a wood chipper, a rototiller, & lots of time on his hands. I always got the impression he was either having a laugh at my expense (hopefully given I was but an impressionable child) or knew WAY too much about gardening as a means of evidence disposal. =-Jp
But footage of the scuffle shot by the journalists present went viral on the internet ...
Hmmm ...
Weren't the journalists filming a fracas between the bird enthusiasts and the farmers which resulted in a farmer being fined for violence with a weapon?
The footage of the incident, later broadcast by France Télévisions and others (?) undoubtedly ended up being the proof which got him nailed with a fine for assault.
So ...
How is it that said footage became breach of privacy?
Makes me wonder why France Télévisions has not appealed the ruling.
They were covering the news, were they not?
And if the famer decided to come out improperly dressed pour l'occasion ...
Whose fault is it?
O.
They were trespassing on private land based on, what it appears from the article, a misconception that the farmer was breaking the law with regard to trapping songbirds. The article doesn't appear to specify whether the farmer was actually breaking the law or not in that regard. Where he did break the law was in defending his property from illegal intruders and seems to have gone too far in his efforts, hence the assault charge. This means the film crew were also there illegally and filmed him on his private land where he has a legitimate expectation of privacy, IANAL nor am I French. All of the above is my untrained and ill informed opinion.
If France Télévisions don’t have a release for publishing his image, it’s a violation of private life over here.
The company and the birdwatchers would have been fully within their rights in showing this vid to magistrates as evidence of GBH, but it cannot go further than the beak - who gave the farmer a minor slap on the wrist and probably told him to call the Gendarmerie the next time rather than going Jean Rambeau on their arses.
FT releasing the footage to the world without the necessary authorisations, especially when uninvited on private property is a no-no and they should have known better, and they got a slap on the wrist this time round.
> The footage of the incident, later broadcast by France Télévisions and others (?) undoubtedly ended up being the proof which got him nailed with a fine for assault.
> So ...
> How is it that said footage became breach of privacy?
If you have evidence of a crime being committed, you provide that evidence to the police. That would not be a breach of privacy.
Trespassing on someone's private property is a breach of privacy. Filming someone on their own private property without permission is a breach of privacy. Broadcasting such a video to the public is a breach of privacy.
Broadcasting such a video to the public is a breach of privacy.
Hmm ...
What was filmed and later broadcast by France Télévisions was not news?
So ...
In your rather narrow view of what happened (to which you are entitled), journalists at the scene of such an incident would need to get everyone at the site to sign the proper release forms before turning on their cameras?
O.
@oiseau “In your rather narrow view of what happened (to which you are entitled), journalists at the scene of such an incident would need to get everyone at the site to sign the proper release forms before turning on their cameras?”
Well in the courts probably not so narrow of view of what happened his privacy was breached.
There is a lot that cannot be known from the article, or the linked article that was in English.
Was the violence the only thing he was charged with? If so, then filming on his land without permission and then broadcasting it was breaching his privacy.
Was the film broadcast before the conviction? If it was then not pixelating him out was a breach of privacy. Pixelating people out is what normally happens and no release form is needed to broadcast, we see it all the time for investigative journalism.
“What was filmed and later broadcast by France Télévisions was not news?”
Would it have been any less news if he was pixelated out?
News that they were part of because they were trespassing. France Télévisions were taking the law into their own hands. Maybe there would have been no violence if they had reported their suspicions to the police and came with the police and filmed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
